[c-nsp] How do ACLs effect throughput

[Terence Scott]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the very informative reply, I had a feeling that we might 
need to replace the 2600s but it's good to have it confirmed :-)

Given that we only require packet switching and ACL features in these 
remote sites we will probably go for L3 switches, 3750s most likely.

Regards,

Terence

-------- Original Message --------
*Subject: *Re: [c-nsp] How do ACLs effect throughput
*From: *Tony <td_miles at yahoo.com>
*To: *Cisco-NSP <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>, Terence Scott 
<terence.scott at um.edu.mt>
*Date: *13 July 2011 03:56:11 PM
> Hi Terence,
>
> As per the Cisco Router Performance link already posted by someone else these routers will NOT handle anything much above 10Mbps (and even that is a struggle).
>
> You are going to require an upgrade.
>
> If you are planning on trying to use the full 100Mbps link then you should in theory be looking at 3800 or any of the G2 ISR models (1900/2900/3900). I don't have any personal experience with them, but someone else might have something to add about real world performance from them.
>
> If you want something cheap and second hand you could look at an old 7200 with NPE-300/400/G1 in it. You should be able to get an I/O card that has 2x 10/100 ports on it, so not need to add any modules to it.
>
> You will also need to consider how the services are handed off to you. If they are fiber then you might want to look at a router that has SFP ports built into it instead of having to use an external fibre/copper converter. A quick check shows that 3800, some of the 2900 and all of the 3900 have SFP ports on them.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10537/prod_series_comparison.html
>
> As for the question of how ACL's affect throughput, I'm not sure if there is any real hit on these routers ? Perhaps someone else might be able to elaborate if they know one way or the other.
>
>
>
> regards,
> Tony.
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 13/7/11, Terence Scott<terence.scott at um.edu.mt>  wrote:
>
>> From: Terence Scott<terence.scott at um.edu.mt>
>> Subject: [c-nsp] How do ACLs effect throughput
>> To: "Cisco-NSP"<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>> Received: Wednesday, 13 July, 2011, 6:52 PM
>> Dear all,
>>
>> My organisation has two (old) Cisco 2600 series routers
>> deployed in two remote sites, one 2620 and one 2621. So far
>> these routers have been performing very well, however we are
>> now looking at substantially increasing the bandwidth of the
>> WAN links that connect these two remote sites to the central
>> office. At present these remote sites connect to the central
>> office via 4Mbps ADSL lines and we will be upgrading these
>> to 100Mbps (full-duplex) optical fibre links. We are
>> essentially trying to determine whether these old routers
>> will still be able to handle the increased traffic load or
>> whether we need to upgrade the routers as well. The
>> information we have managed to find so far suggests that
>> these routers would be able to cope if all packet switching
>> is done in CEF. The set-up in these remote sites is quite
>> simple and we only use extended IP access lists in order to
>> control access to certain VLANs. Does anybody know whether
>> these ACLs would cause the traffic to be punted from CEF to
>> process switching?
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>> Terence
>>